U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed little interest Wednesday in advancing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the wake of an announcement from the White House last week that the Obama administration won’t take action against LGBT workplace discrimination at this time.

Although the administration insists it will work with Congress to pass legislation in lieu of an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers, Boehner seemed unaware of ENDA in response to a question from the Washington Blade, saying, “I haven’t seen the bill. I haven’t thought much about it.”

Asked whether passage of ENDA might alleviate the 8.2 percent unemployment rate if employers were barred from firing LGBT workers, Boehner said “ample laws” are in place and deferred further comment to the House Committee on Education & the Workforce. The committee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

“No one should face discrimination in the workforce,” Boehner said. “There are ample laws already in place to deal with this. Having been the chairman of the Education & Workforce Committee, I’m quite familiar with employment law. But if there are further changes that are necessary, I’m sure the committee will look at it.”

Even if Boehner were to bring the bill to a vote, it is unlikely to pass the House where Republican lawmakers hold the majority. ENDA has 161 co-sponsors in the House, far short of the 218 votes that would be needed for passage.

But Boehner’s lack of interest in ENDA raises questions about how the administration expects to move forward with legislation prohibiting LGBT workplace discrimination in the wake of announced plans to work with Congress to the pass the bill instead of taking administrative action and issuing an executive order.

On Monday, White House spokesperson Shin Inouye told the Blade and other media outlets that the “time is right” for a comprehensive legislative approach to passage of ENDA.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said Boehner’s response indicates he doesn’t want to appear to go against the majority of the American public, which backs the idea of legislation protecting LGBT workers from discrimination, according to several polls. Some of those polls show that many Americans remain under the false impression that such a law is already in place.

“I think Speaker Boehner ducked this question from the Washington Blade because he does not want to have to publicly side with the small and decreasing number of Americans who tell pollsters that simply being gay should be grounds for firing a talented and hard working employee,” Almeida said. “Polling data shows that LGBT workplace fairness is quickly becoming a winning wedge issue to use against pro-discrimination politicians who hold antiquated and un-American beliefs.”

Meanwhile, LGBT advocates continue to push President Obama to issue the executive order — despite the announced “no” on the proposed action delivered to them last week — as they call for congressional action in the Democratic-controlled Senate on ENDA. The Blade reported extensively on the importance of a trans-inclusive hearing and markup on the bill last month.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, alluded to the importance of a hearing as he lambasted Boehner for his response to the legislation.

“If the speaker is so familiar with employment law he should know it’s perfectly legal to fire LGBT people in most states,” Cole-Schwartz said. “This attitude is precisely why we need congressional hearings on an inclusive ENDA so the costs of employment discrimination are put on full display.”

No federal law or federal regulation bars employers from firing LGBT workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Firing or discriminating against someone because they’re gay is legal in 29 states; firing or discriminating against someone because they’re transgender is legal in 34 states.

Justine Sessions, a Senate HELP Committee spokesperson, said this week no plans are in place to hold a hearing on the bill.

“Sen. Harkin is strongly supportive of an inclusive ENDA and looks forward to working with Sen. Merkley and other supporters to advance this important issue,” Sessions said. “The HELP Committee has not planned any hearings beyond the month of May, but I am happy to keep you posted.”

On the same day Boehner punted to the House Committee on Education & the Workforce on ENDA, the committee in fact held a hearing on a related issue: the impact of regulatory and enforcement actions of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

The hearing is significant because it would have been an opportunity to discuss the proposed executive order requiring companies doing business with the U.S. government to have non-discrimination policies protecting LGBT employees. Multiple sources have said the Labor and Justice Departments cleared the measure before sending it to the White House, which announced last week it won’t take action at this time on the directive.

According to a news statement from Freedom to Work, no complaints were voiced about the executive order despite the nature of the hearing.

“Today’s congressional hearing featured three Republican-selected witnesses, including business representatives, and not a single one of them complained about the proposal to add LGBT Americans to the Labor Department’s rules that ensure taxpayer dollars are not squandered by discriminatory contractors who allow anti-gay hostile work environments,” Almeida said. “Not a single Republican member of Congress who attended the hearing complained either.”

In an email to the Blade, Almeida clarified that the executive order didn’t come up in any capacity during the hearing in addition to no one voicing any complaints about it. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the committee, was among 72 House members who wrote to Obama urging him to sign the executive order.

Almeida stressed the importance of signing the executive order as the most immediate way to provide protections to LGBT workers.

“Ever since I attended the White House meeting last Wednesday with Valerie Jarrett, White House spokesperson Jay Carney has been ducking questions from the press and making up lame excuses to justify the president’s delay in signing this executive order that Barack Obama promised four years ago he would sign if we helped elect him,” Almeida said. “I agree with the Center for American Progress and the Human Rights Campaign that President Obama should sign the LGBT order now. To quote the president’s own words, ‘We can’t wait.’”

A transcript of the exchange between Boehner and the Blade follows:

Washington Blade: Mr. Speaker, the White House announced the president won’t issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to have non-discrimination policies in place preventing them from firing workers who are gay or transgender. Instead, they said he wants to work with Congress to pass legislation known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar most employers from discriminating against workers on this basis. What are your views on this legislation and would you be open to bringing it up for a vote?

Boehner: I haven’t seen the bill. I haven’t thought much about it.

Blade: Arguably, among those who are in the 8.2 percent who are unemployed are in that situation because they faced discrimination on this basis. Wouldn’t passage of this legislation —

Boehner: Well, no one should face discrimination in the workforce. There are ample laws already in place to deal with this. Having been the chairman of the Education & Workforce Committee, I’m quite familiar with employment law. But if there are further changes that are necessary, I’m sure the committee will look at it.

The Blade reporter should not have allowed Boehner to get away with that response. He actually made it sound like we have workplace protections in place already, and he knows that is a lie. In the past, I have observed the Democrats avoiding the discussion of our issues, because some of their members, (mainly conservative Blue Dogs) actually oppose LGBT rights. This is still a problem, but the GOP members are almost uniformally against us with a handful of exceptions. All of this lends credibility to the notion that Obama must issue an executive order to get things rolling, since the Republicans will never take action on the issue while they are in charge of the House.

Issuing an Executive Order before then will not result in more votes for President Obama. The number of progressive/liberal/independents who won’t vote for Obama absent a pre-November EO is minimal. The number of right-wingers who will be galvanized by an EO is considerable. They are highly-motivated and good at getting out the hate-vote. Liberals and Independents are not good at getting out the progressive vote.

The net result of a pre-November EO will be fewer votes for President Obama’s reelection.

Very quiet over there in Log Cabin Republican land. Having had so much to say about Obama’s failure to sign the ENDA executive order, apparently Boehner’s dismissive attitude on the same subject has rendered his LCR apologists speechless.

Most Americans mistakenly believe that anti-LGBT job discrimination is already illegal. I think Boehner is deliberately encouraging that misperception to justify inaction. Tim is right, the Blade should never have let him get away with the deception.

It’s astonishing–yet not at all surprising–that the Speaker of the House can give such a flip response to a legitimate question about a bill with implications for millions of American citizens and businesses. Yes, businesses. Surely with the corporate world to be affected, that alone would pique Republican interest–since obvious fairness and equal justice aren’t sufficient to these alleged Constitution-lovers. GMAB (Give me a break). As for LCRs…I find it sad that anyone is so wed to a nostalgic view of what a formerly great institution once stood for that they are willing to tolerate its outright hostility and utter disdain from their fellow Republicans, at least the moralizing right wing of the party. Why do we insist on being wed to this two-party system? It makes more sense to me, LCRs, to become a conservative wing of the Democratic party–where you are at least welcomed, rather than reviled. Then bring the good Republican ideas, the traditional ones you espouse, to reel in the Democrats and maybe help stiffen their spines.